Swerb wrote:Dude is amazing. We're witnessing the most dominant individual talent in sports history, at the pinnacle of his prime.

I could make a compelling argument for Lance Armstrong here.

No way. Armstrong dominated ONE race. That is it. Tiger wins all over the world, against all types of competetion. It doesn't matter who the competetion is, he wins. It doesn't matter what course he plays, he wins. Armstrong isn't even in the same galaxy as Tiger.

this is what seperates tiger from lebron james. lebron misses potential game-winning shots, like against washington just last week, while tiger sinks them like he's got ice water in his veins. if lebron wants to win the mvp this year, he can start by making a couple of game-winning shots at the buzzer.

davemanddd wrote:this is what seperates tiger from lebron james. lebron misses potential game-winning shots, like against washington just last week, while tiger sinks them like he's got ice water in his veins. if lebron wants to win the mvp this year, he can start by making a couple of game-winning shots at the buzzer.

Not to go there, but I am gonna go there.

Stop it. Talking about LBJ failing with the game on the line is so 2007.

No way. Armstrong dominated ONE race. That is it. Tiger wins all over the world, against all types of competetion. It doesn't matter who the competetion is, he wins. It doesn't matter what course he plays, he wins. Armstrong isn't even in the same galaxy as Tiger.

I think Lance is a very valid comparison, we just have to define what exactly we are comparing. I would tend to agree Lance is the superior athlete and maybe the world's best athlete. The Tour de France is one of if not the hardest individual thing to do in the world. The better talent, I would go with Tiger, just b/c Tiger is so dominant at what he doesn't does not necessarily equate to him being the better athlete.

Bottom line here is that Tiger is just plain ridiculous, oh and Lance is currently retired.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

I'm not trying to take anything from Armstrong. I just feel that Tiger is more dominant because he plays 20-25 tourney's a year, and wins more than half of them. He plays in all kinds of conditions, different courses, and the best players in the world. And he still wins. I just don't think we will ever see this again. I remember when ESPN was doing the best athletes of the century. I rememeber thinking how cool it would have been to see Babe Ruth, Jesse Owens, and Joe Louis. Well, we are watching Babe Ruth. When it is time for ESPN to do another "best of century", Tiger is going to be number 1. And people then will be thinking how cool it would have been to see Tiger Woods play.

Lance was also going against the best in the world at what he does, and while maybe it seems to us he lacked other courses the Tour de France is the world's toughest course in his sport, and he won it 7 times in a row.

In order for Tiger to truly duplicate that in golf he would either have to win 7 straight majors or win the U.S. or British Opens 7 times in a row.

Tiger wins more for a few reasons, one he plays more, also Lance's sport require much longer periods of preparation. Those riders have to deal with a field of competition just like golf and also have to deal with terrain and conditions just like golfers do...and the real kicker IMO is with the Tour de France they have to do that everyday for what a month, Tiger as good as he is and as great an athlete as he is only has to golf for 4 days in a row.

Really though aren't we picking knits, they are both incredible and are probably the only two that deserve to be in this conversation.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

He's the greatest golfer of all time. That's as far as I'm willing to go. His sport is decidedly less athletic, and physically demanding than football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, tennis, etc. My 82 year old great-uncle is a better golfer than I am, but NOT a better athlete. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE to play golf. But to call Tiger a better overall athlete that LeBron, Josh Cribbs, Grady, etc. is a bit skewed.

Brendan wrote:He's the greatest golfer of all time. That's as far as I'm willing to go. His sport is decidedly less athletic, and physically demanding than football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, volleyball, tennis, etc. My 82 year old great-uncle is a better golfer than I am, but NOT a better athlete. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE to play golf. But to call Tiger a better overall athlete that LeBron, Josh Cribbs, Grady, etc. is a bit skewed.

Just depends on your definition of "athlete". According to Webster it is " a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports". By that definition, I would consider Tiger an "Athlete".

Also, he is in better shape than most baseball players (at least the ones not roiding)